Cont: Proof of Immortality, V for Very long discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jabba said:
- I accept that creating a perfect copy of a living person would not have the first person looking through two sets of eyes, and creating a perfect copy of a dead person would not bring the first person back to life.
- Dinner time...
Click to expand...
OK, that seems to be progress. We've come to an understanding that a perfect copy is separate, albeit identical, to the original.

Now if we could return to the question I posed last night when you said that you believed that the two identical copies would have something significantly different between them - what difference do you think there would be, and why?
 
Pixel42 said:
Yes, the only difference between the two would be their location in spacetime. I don't understand why others agree with Jabba that this would not be a recreation of the original, it fits every requirement to be described as such.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you define "recreate". Under the standard definition you are correct.
 
JimOfAllTrades said:
If I understand, you're using "recreate" in the sense that even if we recreate the body and brain exactly we would have a duplicate "sense of self" and not the exact same "sense of self". Is that correct?

However, maybe that's wrong.

  1. Let's say we have the ability to take a "snapshot" of you at some point in time that can later be used to exactly recreate your body and brain.
  2. We do this just as you die.
  3. Later, when we have the knowledge to fix your cause of death, we recreate you and fix you.
  4. You are now alive again.

You will have complete continuity of memory, you will continue to feel exactly as you did about souls, baysian statistics, effective debate, rap music, etc. We will have recreated you, the same you, the same sense of self, the whole enchilada.
Click to expand...
Jim,
- I can't be sure we're talking about the same self -- it isn't something we can point at.
- If this was done before I died, would I find myself looking out two sets of eyes?
 
Jabba said:
Jim,
- I can't be sure we're talking about the same self -- it isn't something we can point at.
- If this was done before I died, would I find myself looking out two sets of eyes?
Click to expand...

Would you be physically connected to two sets of eyes?
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
Jim,
- I can't be sure we're talking about the same self -- it isn't something we can point at.
- If this was done before I died, would I find myself looking out two sets of eyes?
Click to expand...


Jabba, whose eyes would the copy have?
 
Jabba said:
I can't be sure we're talking about the same self -- it isn't something we can point at.
Click to expand...

Nobody's pointing at anything. But you have been told often enough that the self under H and the self under ~H are quite differently formulated. If someone is answering under the auspices of H, assume they don't mean the soul you're trying to prove.

You're backsliding into repetitive obfuscation. Don't ruin a good thing.

If this was done before I died, would I find myself looking out two sets of eyes?
Click to expand...

This is a red herring. Under either H or ~H why would you even consider the possibility? It makes no sense either way. In any case, your critics are quite united in answering this question in the negative. Move on.
 
Jabba said:
- No. And, I assume that I would not be looking trough two sets of eyes. Our selves would be different.
Click to expand...


No, under H their consciousnesses would be the same. There would be two identical consciousnesses looking through two identical sets of eyes.
 
Jabba said:
- No. And, I assume that I would not be looking trough two sets of eyes. Our selves would be different.
Click to expand...

"Different" meaning there would be two of them, not that there is any difference between them.

If selves are physical, then it would be impossible for one self to be connected to two sets of eyes in two separate bodies.
 
Jabba said:
- No. And, I assume that I would not be looking trough two sets of eyes. Our selves would be different.
Click to expand...


Which takes us back to Agatha's question, which you completely failed to address when you replied to her post: why do you think there would be a difference, and what would that difference be?

Agatha said:
What would be different, and where/how does this difference arise?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You guys are falling into Jabba's trap.

Again whether or not some magical exact duplicate of a person, both in physical form and biological mental processing, would be the "same" person is a trap question with no meaningful answer. None of our current terminology applies because it's not a scenario our language developed to describe. It's like asking if a Blern is green when you don't know what a Blern is yet.

Jabba is trying to trick and trap us into either making definition statements he can then throw back in our face or non-definitive statements he can hair split.
 
JoeBentley said:
Jabba is trying to trick and trap us into either making definition statements he can then throw back in our face or non-definitive statements he can hair split.
Click to expand...

Specifically he's trying to get people to buy into his equivocations of "same" and "different," conflating similitude with number. He's still frantically grasping at the Big Denominator.
 
JayUtah said:
No. Vague handwaving doesn't fix this problem. If
Your theory requires (1) a particular physical body, (2) a particular soul, (3) some mechanism to combine them.​
is an acceptable formulation of your theory, the law is provably correct for it.
Click to expand...

Bump for Jabba. Have you figured out why the numerical argument works this way?
 
caveman1917 said:
What multiverse?
Click to expand...

It's the only thing that helps your argument. You argued for an infinite universe, as if that helps you, even though you have no idea how to calculate those odds. At least with a multiverse you could claim that another universe could just happen to have the right conditions for Ewoks, but since it's unproven, it turns out not to help you at all.

Of course it does.
Click to expand...

Then you also know nothing of probability. It seems that you're ill-equipped to discuss this topic, 100%.

You should've made sure you had them before you betted them away.
Click to expand...

No need, since I know I can't possibly lose this argument. You're wrong from the get go.
 
Argumemnon said:
It's the only thing that helps your argument. You argued for an infinite universe, as if that helps you, even though you have no idea how to calculate those odds. At least with a multiverse you could claim that another universe could just happen to have the right conditions for Ewoks, but since it's unproven, it turns out not to help you at all.

Then you also know nothing of probability. It seems that you're ill-equipped to discuss this topic, 100%.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

So far you've produced sources which outright contradict you, and incoherent ramblings which show you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

No need, since I know I can't possibly lose this argument.
Click to expand...

You're impervious to argument, so in your mind you can never possibly lose any of your "arguments".

You're wrong from the get go.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should try to find some sources to back you up.
 
Mojo said:
Which takes us back to Agatha's question, which you completely failed to address when you replied to her post: why do you think there would be a difference, and what would that difference be?
Click to expand...
Mojo,
- I've been claiming forever that the self to which I'm referring is what reincarnationists think returns after death.
- Also, it is the self that would be looking out two sets of eyes if it was perfectly reproduced.
- To me, that is the kind of self I'm trying to talk about. I don't know why it doesn't communicate...
- Whatever, I assume that that self could not be physically reproduced. My own self awareness (self) would not be brought back to life, or doubled. That's how any reproduction would be different than the original.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom